AuthorTopic: The Beatles minus George (Read 17481 times)

I had a discussion with an Israeli, some years ago. We were talking about the Palestinian question and he could not listen to other people's arguments. He was so convinced that he was right by stating that the land was theirs, because the thora and bible said so. He could not open his eyes and ears to see and listen what other people's opinions were.

I think the pig has got a point. If You Know What To Do was the only thing that George presented in 1964, it was certainly not a lot and that's an understatement. Sewi (or raxo, I can't remember and keep mixing you up, sorry) said that India gave them a chance to finally be together since the tours stopped. Mind you, the last tour was in August 1966, they went to India over a year and a half later! Certainly to Beatles' standards, that is a lot of time. Plus I'm not sure whether the atmosphere in India was all good. Not good enough to last any longer than a few months.

The thing about that song is that George was writing during the early days but he was ignored and I know that more people than me agree that You Know What To Do is as good as the fillers they included on their albums or even better but if John and Paul had their own reasons to not record George material ... I ignore that!You've only got to read the name of the poster to know what sewi said and what I'm saying ... I haven't said that but the only thing I have to add is that "a year and a half" is just what it is, not matter the standards ... or that "a few months" is a lot of time too, if you want to use the same standards ... decide yourshelf!

The sessions for the album were not as good as that atmosphere (or the demos they reocrded in May)mainly because Yoko was there and they were using more studios at the same time ... I think that that was the begining of the bad mood ...

BlueMeanie

I had a discussion with an Israeli, some years ago. We were talking about the Palestinian question and he could not listen to other people's argument. He was so convinced that he was right by stating that the land was theirs, because the thora and bible said so. He could not open his eyes and ears to see and listen what other people's opinions were.

Off topic, sure. But I didn't know where else to post it.

Excellent point Cor. I've already given up on this topic. I value my head, and if I start banging it against the wall it'll break!

Rax, you're in danger of alienating people sometimes with the way you keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back. And never accepting anyone else's point of view. Of course your views are respected but you will never consider anyone else's.

Excellent point Cor. I've already given up on this topic. I value my head, and if I start banging it against the wall it'll break!

Rax, you're in danger of alienating people sometimes with the way you keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back. And never accepting anyone else's point of view. Of course your views are respected but you will never consider anyone else's.

And now I'll exit this thread.

Your point of view ... and my point of view too ... a forum, that's all ... don't take it so seriously ...

I think the pig has got a point. If You Know What To Do was the only thing that George presented in 1964, it was certainly not a lot and that's an understatement. Sewi (or raxo, I can't remember and keep mixing you up, sorry) said that India gave them a chance to finally be together since the tours stopped. Mind you, the last tour was in August 1966, they went to India over a year and a half later! Certainly to Beatles' standards, that is a lot of time. Plus I'm not sure whether the atmosphere in India was all good. Not good enough to last any longer than a few months.

It was me who said that:'The India expierence was important for them not only for the peace and the number and quality of songs but they had an oportunity to be really together since the tours.' and I was saying that to Kevin statement:'No George: no India trip - was it really that important? They'd never had trouble knocking out songs wherever they were.'It is on page 3. I see what you mean Bobber but I think they were very close those months and the footage I have seen it is very diferent to what they have said about filming Magical mystery tour the year before when George felt as an outsider or something like that.Anyway I think without George some of the things the Beatles did like Let it be and some of the best songs would not have been done.I like John and I think that John was curious about the meditation because of George and Ringo and Paul went to India because it was a thing to to with the others but it was a good expierence for them in my opinion but it was not the only thing George did of course heheheh.

The thing about that song is that George was writing during the early days but he was ignored and I know that more people than me agree that You Know What To Do is as good as the fillers they included on their albums or even better but if John and Paul had their own reasons to not record George material ...

Even more people will disagree. Even George himself admitted he had forgotten all about the song, even when he heard it back after so many years. It obviously did not make a big impression.

Even more people will disagree. Even George himself admitted he had forgotten all about the song, even when he heard it back after so many years. It obviously did not make a big impression.

Surely you're right and I'm wrong once again, OK ... but remember that (and this doesn't change a thing of the discussion but you've mentioned, so) George himshelf seemed to have forgot10 lots of things about the group in the Anthologies: songs included on which albums exactly? or even having played a second time at the Shea Stadium : ... that doesn't mean nothing special for me but ...

I agree that George's early songs weren't brilliant-- but neither were Lennon/McCartney's. You've got to consider their pre-recording era songs as their "beginner" library-- not particularly inspiring. "Love Me Do" was their first hit and, I'm with George Martin on this one. I just don't like that song very much. Of course, I'm looking at it from the perspective of time. At the time, I understand the harmonica (GM's suggestion per Geoff Emerick) made the sound unique, and that's why it went as high as it did in the charts. GM also rearranged PPM from (his word) a "dirge" into the peppy happy song that we now know (and I really like). Notice GM kept the harmonica in all the early Beatles' songs-- that was their selling point and signature sound, as far as he was concerned.

GM did not put similar effort into shaping George's songs, by his own statements. So George was slower developing, and he didn't have the luxury of a songwriting partner to help craft his ideas, because Paul and John were the songwriting team and George wasn't. In the rush of Beatlemania, who else could he collaborate with, when most nights were in a completely different town and the only consistent people he had around them were his bandmates, who (again documented by GM) really didn't help George except to throw out a piece of advice here or there. He certainly learned a lot by watching, but crafting your own stuff takes some concentrated effort, and there just wasn't time available this, or effort expended by the others. When the touring stopped and George found himself with more time, he started composing a lot of songs. And some of those songs are among the Beatles' best and many people's favorites.

Anyway, I can see why many people think George wasn't crucial to the Beatles. I'll just say, he was for me. I wasn't motivated to buy any Beatles music until after watching the Anthology. I felt myself strongly relating to George, and so started investigating more into these Beatle people. It turned out, his songs were more to my taste-- a little more contemplative. Yes, the John and Paul hits were catchy, infectious, and I really enjoyed them-- but I didn't particularly need them in my house. I wanted George songs in my house. I'm in the minority, I realize. But I wouldn't be here if not for George, so I'm very grateful to him.

Logged

All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007<br />

I agree that George's early songs weren't brilliant-- but neither were Lennon/McCartney's. You've got to consider their pre-recording era songs as their "beginner" library-- not particularly inspiring. "Love Me Do" was their first hit and, I'm with George Martin on this one. I just don't like that song very much. Of course, I'm looking at it from the perspective of time. At the time, I understand the harmonica (GM's suggestion per Geoff Emerick) made the sound unique, and that's why it went as high as it did in the charts. GM also rearranged PPM from (his word) a "dirge" into the peppy happy song that we now know (and I really like). Notice GM kept the harmonica in all the early Beatles' songs-- that was their selling point and signature sound, as far as he was concerned.

GM did not put similar effort into shaping George's songs, by his own statements. So George was slower developing, and he didn't have the luxury of a songwriting partner to help craft his ideas, because Paul and John were the songwriting team and George wasn't. In the rush of Beatlemania, who else could he collaborate with, when most nights were in a completely different town and the only consistent people he had around them were his bandmates, who (again documented by GM) really didn't help George except to throw out a piece of advice here or there. He certainly learned a lot by watching, but crafting your own stuff takes some concentrated effort, and there just wasn't time available this, or effort expended by the others. When the touring stopped and George found himself with more time, he started composing a lot of songs. And some of those songs are among the Beatles' best and many people's favorites. [...]

Wow ... I agree 100% with you, harihead!!! You've explained it very clearly!!! (thumbsup)Imagine You Know What To Do (we only know a simple demo of the song) with help and inputs from the others (harmonies, arragements and a solo, for example). George was just 21 when he wrote it but pretty soon he showed to the world that he was a great composer!

Quote from: 551

[...]Anyway, I can see why many people think George wasn't crucial to the Beatles. I'll just say, he was for me. I wasn't motivated to buy any Beatles music until after watching the Anthology. I felt myself strongly relating to George, and so started investigating more into these Beatle people. It turned out, his songs were more to my taste-- a little more contemplative. Yes, the John and Paul hits were catchy, infectious, and I really enjoyed them-- but I didn't particularly need them in my house. I wanted George songs in my house. I'm in the minority, I realize. But I wouldn't be here if not for George, so I'm very grateful to him.[...]

The same here ... we're in the minority and what? I thank him for having you here!!! Have I told you that I love how you express yourshelf? :K)

So now you are agreeing to the idea that there was a songwriting team. In another thread (about the India thing, or is that this same thread?) we agreed that India brought a lot of songs, but when I stated that it wasn't any group efforts, you replied that composing was hardly ever a group effort. And a team is a group, right?